Jack v. Chapman et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 04/13/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division
JAMES L.

JACK,

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No.

MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, ^

3;16CV316

al.,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

James L. Jack, a Virginia inmate, has submitted this civil
action under 42

U.S.C.

§

1983.

The matter is before

the

Court

on Jack's failure to serve Defendant Rima,

the Motion to Dismiss

filed

and

by

Defendants

("Defendants"),
§ 1915A,

42

and

U.S.C.

the

Sean

Dikeman

Court's

§ 1997e{c).

obligations
For

the

Joshua
under

reasons

28

Lowden
U.S.C.

stated below,

the Motion to Dismiss will be granted and Jack's claims will be
dismissed.

I.

FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANT RIMA

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),^ Jack had 90
days

to

serve

Defendants.

Here,

that

period

commenced

^ Rule 4(m) provides, in pertinent part:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own
after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that
service be made within a specified time.
But if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court

on